COVIDiots and Cogency: Heuristic Dynamics of Defying Pandemic Health Measures

Roy Schwartzman, Jenni M. Simon

Source Title: Rationalist Bias in Communication Theory

ISBN13: 9781799874393|ISBN10: 1799874397|ISBN13 Softcover: 9781799874409|EISBN13: 9781799874416

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7439-3.ch004

MLA

Schwartzman, Roy, and Jenni M. Simon. "COVIDiots and Cogency: Heuristic Dynamics of Defying Pandemic Health Measures." Rationalist Bias in Communication Theory, edited by Leonard Shedletsky, IGI Global, 2021, pp. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7439-3.ch004

APA

Schwartzman, R. & Simon, J. M. (2021). COVIDiots and Cogency: Heuristic Dynamics of Defying Pandemic Health Measures. In L. Shedletsky (Ed.), Rationalist Bias in Communication Theory (pp. 1-24). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7439-3.ch004

Chicago

Schwartzman, Roy, and Jenni M. Simon. "COVIDiots and Cogency: Heuristic Dynamics of Defying Pandemic Health Measures." In Rationalist Bias in Communication Theory, edited by Leonard Shedletsky, 1-24. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7439-3.ch004

Export Reference

Favorite

View Full Text HTML

View Full Text PDF

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States spawns a perplexing polemic. Intransigent coronavirus skeptics who defy public health recommendations often get cast as ideological zealots or as perniciously ignorant. Both characterizations overlook a more fundamental epistemic opposition. The authors recast the conflict between COVID-19 skeptics and public health advocates as the rhetorical incompatibility between the deliberative, scientifically grounded public health experts and the intuitive, emotion-driven mental heuristics of the non-compliant. This study examines the discourse of COVID-19 misinformation purveyors on broadcast media and online. Their main contentions rely on heuristics and biases that collectively not only undermine trust in particular medical experts, but also undercut trust in the institutions and reasoning processes of science itself. The findings suggest ways that public health campaigns can become more effective by leveraging some of the intuitive drivers of attitudes and behaviors that scientists and argumentation theorists routinely dismiss as fallacious.